* AOL May Put Speed Bump on the Information Superhighway
* Clinton's Tobacco Lawsuit is Bad Policy and a Tax Increase by
Another Name
* House of Representatives Accuses Cheryl Mills of Perjury
* 50% Believe a Super Bowl Bet is a Better Investment than Social
Security

The fight is between AT&T and the cable TV's TCI, which
want to combine to offer faster Internet access by sending Internet
signals through TV cable, and America Online, which wants both
the federal government and thousands of local governments to prohibit
AT&T/TCI from offering this service unless they give a piece
of their cable network to AOL.

If AOL wins, companies like AT&T and scores of others investing
in technological improvements will have less incentive to do so.

AOL would like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to mandate that AT&T/TCI must let AOL have access to the AT&T/TCI
network. Although the FCC has yet to rule on AOL's request, the
FCC doesn't seem inclined to do so.

AOL is also lobbying local governments against the AT&T/TCI
merger. Because local governments approved TCI's right to provide
local cable TV services, AOL reasons, local governments can prohibit
AT&T from merging with TCI to provide Internet and telephone
access through those same cables.

So far only Portland, Oregon has agreed with AOL, but most
cities have yet to decide. AOL is lobbying hard, so it can't be
assumed that AOL won't win in many cities. AT&T has responded
by filing suit in federal court in Portland, saying that, under
the terms of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, they can't be prohibited
from using their own cable network exclusively. But this suit,
filed in mid-January, has yet to be heard.

In any city in which AOL wins, consumers will be denied faster
Internet access and improved TV and telephone options. If many
cities agree with AOL, the effect will be national, as fewer companies
will be willing to invest in technological improvements.

In a recent poll, Americans said that increasing the Internet's
speed and efficiency was their number one technology priority.
It would be ironic if this popular goal was thwarted by America's
largest Internet provider, American Online.

Clinton's Tobacco Lawsuit is Bad Policy and a Tax
Increase by Another Name

President Clinton's decision, announced during his state of
the Union speech, to instruct the Justice Department to file suit
against tobacco companies is bad policy, says Amy Ridenour of
The National Center for Public Policy Research.

"President Clinton says the purpose of the lawsuit is
to raise money," said Ridenour, but the Constitution plainly
states that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate
in the House of Representatives. By suing tobacco companies, President
Clinton is clearly trying raise revenue while bypassing the legislative
branch, which is reluctant to raise taxes to the higher level
President Clinton prefers."

"What's more," said Ridenour, "Congress is right
not to raise taxes, including tobacco taxes. Taxes are already
the highest they've ever been in American history. And tobacco
taxes are notoriously regressive. According to the Congress' Joint
Committee on Taxation, 53% of tobacco revenues come from people
making under $30,000 and a 97% come from people making under $75,000.
If President Clinton really believes the federal government needs
more revenue, he should not look to the poor and the middle class
to finance it."

Ridenour concludes: "If President Clinton's lawsuit is
successful, tobacco companies will be forced to raise prices.
This is essentially a tax by another name. President Clinton claims
to be motivated by health concerns, but if he truly was, he wouldn't
want the federal government to keep money taken from tobacco companies.
Instead, he'd use any money he gets from tobacco to fund tax cuts
for low and lower-middle income Americans. This policy would achieve
the President's goal of raising cigarette prices without hurting
lower income Americans. But the President isn't interested in
this option. He'd rather keep the money."

For copies of these papers, contact David Almasi at (202) 507-6398
or visit http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA# (with # being the
number of the National Policy Analysis paper desired).

House of Representatives Accuses Cheryl Mills of
Perjury

Persons following the President's impeachment defense, and,
in particular, the arguments made before the Senate by White House
Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills, may want to read the House Subcommittee
On National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, And Regulatory
Affairs's October 1998 report, "Investigation Of The Conversion
Of The $1.7 Million Centralized White House Computer System, Known
As The White House Database, And Related Matters." The report
says, in part, "The committee found substantial evidence
that Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills perjured herself
in testimony before the committee about her decision, made in
concert with White House Counsel Jack Quinn, to withhold important
documents responsive to the committee's requests." To read
the full report, including more details about the allegations
against Mills, visit http://www.house.gov/reform/neg/reports/whodb/whodb.htm
for access to both the html and pdf versions of the report.

50% Believe a Super Bowl Bet is a Better Investment
than Social Security

A new survey conducted by a joint Republican-Democrat pollster
team and announced by the Generation X group Third Millennium
and Oppenheimer Funds on January 21 finds that 52% of Americans
believe it is more likely that a pro wrestler will be elected
president than likely that they will collect all the Social Security
funds they are entitled to.

Other findings in the survey include:

* 50% think a Super Bowl bet is a better investment than Social
Security

* 70% believe Social Security should be reformed while 10%
believe Social Security should be scrapped and started over

* 66% believe Washington should "act now,' while 28%
want more public discussion

* 76% want privatization -- more than any other reform option

* 77% said they are concerned about having a financially secure
retirement

* 54% said they might face a retirement crisis

* 56% said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate
who opposed changing the Social Security system

* 85% are confident of their own ability to manage their own
retirement account

* 46% said Social Security was their 1st or 2nd most important
retirement savings

For an information kit about the survey, including more results,
contact Richard Thau at 202/939-0077. To read the results of past
surveys, visit http://www.thirdmil.org.*

Scoop is published by The National Center for Public
Policy Research to provide information about the activities of
the conservative movement. Coverage of a meeting or statement
in Scoop does not imply endorsement by The National Center for
Public Policy Research. Copyright 1998 The National Center for
Public Policy Research. Reprints of articles in Scoop permitted
provided source is credited.